Author
Topic: 1Dx hands review by Ron Martinsen as posted to his blog on February 12 (Read 8518 times)

One paragraph in his conclusion says similar things which have been discussed here as well

"Of course one difficult situation Canon has put me in is that they’ve finally built the camera I hoped I was getting when I made the leap to get my 1D Mark III, but they’ve priced it to be as insanely expensive (yet still cheaper than a 1Ds Mark III). I have a fear of ending up with the state-of-the-art promise only to be disappointed with a nightmare performance like I had with the Mark III. Fortunately, I’ve been assured by Canon that I’ll get a better chance early next year to give one of these cameras a test drive to give you my honest opinion on this camera. From everything I’ve seen so far I’m afraid I need to make a lifestyle change so I can start saving for this camera, but I’m also so pleased at what I’m seeing that I might be putting both my 1D Mark IV and 5D Mark II on the market to help pay for it."

outsider

Interesting read.One thing I didn't quite understand (and hopefully someone can clarify this):Quote from link"Canon claims that with in-camera JPEG’s the image quality seen today in the 1Ds-Mark III/5D Mark II will be the level of quality seen at up to ISO 1600 in the 1D X. That’s a tall claim, but my hands on experience at the Expo seems to indicate this is true."

What exactly does that mean? Up to ISO1600 the 1DsmkIII, 5dmk2 and 1Dx will have similar quality up to ISO 1600? So at ISO1600 all cameras have similar amounts of noise in the image?

Logged

tt

One of my frustrations with my 1D Mark IV was that its low light auto focus performance was mediocre at best (worst than the 5D Mark II’s antiquated system). As a result it wasn’t a very good camera for situations like concerts, night clubs, etc… which is really where you want a high ISO pro camera. It seems that the advancements in metering with the new 100,000 pixel RGB metering sensor and its dedicated DIGIC 4 processor and a leap from 63 metering points to 252 will result in far fewer scenarios where you push the shutter release and nothing happens because it can not meter the contrast and/or acquire focus.

Canon has also made significant strides to not only catch up with the mighty Nikon D3s (the current high ISO noise champion), but from what I saw in these early cameras it possibly has surpassed it. The formerly useless ISO 12,800 is now usable and appears to look at least as good as what ISO 1600 looked like on the 1D Mark IV. Unfortunately I couldn’t take any of my own images for closer scrutiny elsewhere, so the judge is still out on this. At a minimum it seems that Canon has matched the Nikon D3s and is definitely 2 stops better at high ISO performance, but I think it is higher than that. It certainly seems to be a camera where 12,800 and lower all seem like very usable ISO’s from what I saw.

Interesting read.One thing I didn't quite understand (and hopefully someone can clarify this):Quote from link"Canon claims that with in-camera JPEG’s the image quality seen today in the 1Ds-Mark III/5D Mark II will be the level of quality seen at up to ISO 1600 in the 1D X. That’s a tall claim, but my hands on experience at the Expo seems to indicate this is true."

What exactly does that mean? Up to ISO1600 the 1DsmkIII, 5dmk2 and 1Dx will have similar quality up to ISO 1600? So at ISO1600 all cameras have similar amounts of noise in the image?

i haven't got a clue either. but later in the review he says "The formerly useless ISO 12,800 is now usable and appears to look at least as good as what ISO 1600 looked like on the 1D Mark IV." that's a pretty big leap forward!

It appears yet another review done by looking at the LCD screen. This is not ron's fault, but I would like to see actual images at very high ISO settings. since no one has them, it seems doubtful that anything over ISO 12,800 is very good.

With a sensor that is effectively the same size as the D3s, yet nearly 6 megapixels more packed into each image, the big question is going to be about image quality – especially at higher ISO’s. Canon claims that with in-camera JPEG’s the image quality seen today in the 1Ds-Mark III/5D Mark II will be the level of quality seen at up to ISO 1600 in the 1D X. That’s a tall claim, but my hands on experience at the Expo seems to indicate this is true. I was unable to test the RAW performance, which Canon naturally acknowledges isn’t as improved as JPEG, but was unable to commit to how much of an improvement due to the pre-production nature of these bodies. Time will tell if it is simply a match to the D3s or if they will be competitive with the D3s replacement.

This is telling me that RAW image ISO performance is likely 1-stop better than the 5Dmk2. I'd expect to see 6400 ISO on the 1Dx to look like 3200 ISO on the 5Dmk2 based on this comment. If it's better, then it's a bonus. But realistically, the sensor difference is 3Mpix less on the 1Dx than the 5Dmk2 and 3 years newer technology. 1-stop better RAW is my thoughts based on that and the comments here.

Yep I'm totally over the LCD reviews enough already canon get the beasts out to the serious reviewers so they can get stuck in I can only see this benefiting their marketing so I dont know why they are playing hard to get.

It appears yet another review done by looking at the LCD screen. This is not ron's fault, but I would like to see actual images at very high ISO settings. since no one has them, it seems doubtful that anything over ISO 12,800 is very good.